Tennisobsessor1's forum posts

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

The games recently have been very dark, modern, gritty, and cold. I know other people have noticed. To me, the creative license in games seems to have been left in favor of a "guarantee" of semi-success with a game to please the masses. No more.There are no guarantees in life anyway, so why try? Just do what you're gonna do. In the movie industry, and the book world as well, the creators make the books and movies that THEY want to make. Of course they consider profit. Of course the financial side is important. I'm no utopian. I know the restrictions of real society. But the developers of these video gamers MUST stand up for what THEY want to do. I always have and always will look on games as the same as movies and books. They are given a blank canvas to paint their most immersive, beautiful, creative, and fun worlds on, so they should take advantage of it! To hell with what other people think! It's a lesson in 7th grade English persuasive writing that you have to be a hundred and ten percent behind your work, or else the audience is just as bored as you. It could be the most popular atmosphere in games today and still make a horrible game. It could be the least popular atmosphere or genre and be far more captivating, but you know what, hell with the if's.

One thing is fact: When you go and thrust yourself and your passion into what you do,your friends, opponents, and audience admire you. It's far more noble and likeable to be a "minor success" or someone who "doesn't make it with the critics" than it is to lose your connection with the users. Face it gamers, there is an emotional connection in great games, however few these games may be, that is just like the movies and books, if not better. That's why I play. I play for the fun and the sort of interactive cinema that games always want to be. KOTOR accomplished this, Jedi Knight 2 did as well, and classics like these are still loved and played for a reason. It's your life, developers,

and it's a shame to end up as just another lemming for the majority of gamers who say they want this, not that. Fine. Be it what it may. But what they say and what they want are 2 different things. They will support whatever you pursue, if it's what you pursue with all your heart. You want that passion that comes from doing what you love; the purpose, the happiness, and the feeling of accomplishment of bursting onto the stage with your ideas and making it.

And if you aren't successful, then there's always next time. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps and cling onto your motivation and ideas! Some artists bloom later than others, and some may be destined to be one-hit wonders. If you don't quite sell enough successful games, your chutzpah and determination to show the world who you are and what you plan to do will get big and important companies interested in you. Don't get me wrong, I know that life isn't always easy to put up with, all the little details. In fact, my attitude suffered a lot, eventhough not with any disorder, due to my pessimism and self-consciousness. Think of actors. Think of great speakers. They would not have been able to do what they did without confidence. An actor who is so self-conscious and self-absorbed that they freeze up and show their nervousness rather than talent end up as nothings, because all mediocre actors have learned that one must put their best foot forward when on stage, or else the audience will not get into it. First, picture a person simply reciting lines quietly while hunched over, shy, and fiddling with themselves. Then picture the same lines read by someone who comes on with a strong voice, good posture, confidence, and good projection, carrying his thoughts to the back of the room, to ol' Gramma Sue in the backrow with her hearing aid in. Compare those two, aqnd which is the better option? This also proves that even though sometimes it may seem like games regurgitate ideas from others in the industry and movies or books, if they do it with enthusiasm, it shows in a high-quality work that will stand the test of time. Nothing is completely original, especialy now that gaming is pretty much pioneered. So what? You develope your own, unmistakeable flavor when you put your soul into any art, including video games. That's a form of originality that will never go away. Above all, make your OWN game. And make it fun for you, and others will show similar tastes eventually. Just keep pushing on. If they ask you why you keep going, tell them you will not back down to peer pressure. If they ask you how you manage to keep going, tell them you learn from failures. In fact, you learn more from failures than success. Like grades, and like life, adversity is inescapable. Straight A's can't be maintained forever, but it doesn't matter, because if a C is your best, there is nothing more that can be asked of you. If life goes into a downward spiral for a short while, you don't give up. You keep going and it ALWAYS gets better. As important as compromise is, don't let them take your identity away from you.

Developers, it's time to gather up that much-needed courage for the road ahead.

Of course, feel free to comment and give me your thoughts on the topic. I'd love to know what you think.

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

Definitely the Jedi Knight series, Neverwinter Nights, and KOTOR. (BTW, yes I know about Old Republic and will check it out, but I want another KOTOR. )

Basically any game with a warm, NOT cold-blooded or excessively mature and trash-talkin, atmosphere. I have nothing against saying some curses here and there, but some games are really getting excessive and the theme just gets too dark, in addition to the depressing stories, bleak landscapes, and so on.

The KOTOR good guy ending and the Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast ending are some of the best endings out there, if not THE best. Bring 'em back,guys! Make it happen!

( Maybe even a mild graphics overhaul would b nice... XD )

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

All right, thanks for the advice, guys. Looks like I'll be prowling the Web for a while lookin for what ppl say about the 5830, 5850, and 5870 for ATi- I dont wanna chance the 5750 or 5770 cuz I hear they have more probs than the other DX11 cards. They're too cheap to be any good lol. And yea, my case may b small, but I have nothing against upgrading that, it's easy. $30 cases at Microcenter. =) For nVIDIA, I think the GTS250 sounds good as well.

BTW: I have heard some reviews of the recently re-named HP Pavilion Elite series comps w/ similar specs to mine, and they say there is a chance that an upgrade would fit in the case if you take out a stick or two of RAM, so maybe I can do that. If that doesn't work, I'll just get a new mid-tower case from Microcenter.

P.S - I dont know my PSU power for absolute sure,since I have nottaken off the sidecase and looked yet,but I'm willing to bet it's 400w or 410 or somethin low,cuz the GT 230 isnt a high-end card. (I've heard that about a million times, ofc)It must belower than 450w, as may be needed for a 5800 series card, meaning I need to break out a new PSU lol.

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

I got a rig that some may say is a little low - end, altho it has served me very well so far. Specs: Intel Core i5 - 750 @ 2.66 GHz, 8 gigs system memory, GT 230 1.5 gb dedicated ddr3, motherboard and PSU unknown, but one can assume the basic idea of what kinda specs they r from the rest of this info. I'm no HD gamer. I couldn't care less if the game is in 720p or 1080p, as long as it is smooth and fluid enough to be enjoyable. (If it's ugly in 720p, it just gets uglier in 1080p. That's my policy.)So please, when I say I wanna know what hardware it takes to run Crysis at max, tell me the requirement for 30 fps relatively consistently on the resolution 1280x720 with all of the game settings on "Very High" (DX10), full Anti-aliasing, and full Anisotropic Filtering. Say it with me here: I do not care about 1080p... I honestly could even bring down the resolution to about 1024x768 if that makes the thing run nicely, it doesnt matter much. Got it? Much appreciated. And yes, the question is what hardware I need to run Crysis maximum settings + full AA and full AF at 720p w/ at least a relatively consistent 30 fps... I was thinking about leaving all the specs alone except the gpu, where I would replace, personally, with a radeon hd 5670 1 gb, since it has DX11 and isnt very expensive, if bought from Newegg.com. I have an HP Pavilion Elite e9260f, so I heard I might need to take out a stick o' ram or two to make sure the gpu fits, but no big deal, right? I hear 4 gigs of ram is still a pretty sweet machine if it has other good specs. My machine can currently power thru Crysis at max settings at 800x600 w/ no AA and maintain approx. 40-60fps. (I dont use FRAPS, so I dont know the exact fps, but its higher than 30 fps and very nice.)

P. S. - Don't insult HP, man... its psychadelio awesomeness... And BTW, if Crysis would play at 60fps on 720p w/ whatev u recommend, plz tell me, and don't forget to say if it will run in 1440x900 as well w/ at least 30 fps, in that case.

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

Sry, maybe I missed it, (cuz there are 30 pages, no offense) but I would like to see where my 1.5gb gt 230 would rank on the list... And yea, its an OEM, so maybe thats why I didnt find it. If so, please make a lis with OEM cards?

Thanks.

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

Well, I guess whenever I need a graphics card upgrade, I can just transplant my stupid computer's guts into a new $30 mid-tower case, along with getting a new card, but honestly, why is my case considered "small" if it's 15 inches long and 14 inches tall? Do I need to have some kind of buffer room in my case? Do other parts like the motherboard get in the way? I would think with my case being bigger than the 9 inch cards I'm looking into, it would be no problem. Even with a 12 inch card, I wouldn't see a problem. That's still 2 inches of space no matter whether I put it in sideways or, even tho its probably not possible,vertically.But I guess, since I have not yet looked to see what exact guts are really in my computer, or ever even upgraded a computer with my bare hands, that I would not know. Perhaps my dad will, since he has fiddled with older computers and upgrading their parts. I have read som reviews of graphics cards like the gts 250, and they say that even though it is big, it can fit in the case, with a little tweaking, maybe even requiring one to bend the edges of their motherboard chips or something along those lines. Alienware Auroras, by the way, are made with cases about the same size as a mini ATX one, and show that off as a size that makes it "easy to upgrade."

Also, how would HP be able to keep making gaming computers if they are supposedly "too small to upgrade?" That doesn't make sense to me, because even consoles nowadays have easy upgrades, and I would come to think that since PC gamers require upgrades more often as the times change and technology advances, the big "kingpins, " so to say, of computers, like HP and Dell, would catch on to the upgradeable parts thing and make it possible to fix up your tower every now and then. To me, if they didn't it would not make sense or any profit, either, because who would buy computers that would be a pain in the backside to fix up and modify? It's just stupid. And if my case is so small, could u tell me what size ur case is? I'm not pissed, don't take it like that, but it doesn't make much sense.

In addition to that, I doubt that even the laptop gamers would buy a laptop where even professionals can't go in and upgrade it. Could that be a good option for me? If this scenario really is like you say it is, then alright, that puts HP and Dell a little lower on my list of good, reliable companies for gaming computers, and rather than fighting with Hewlett Packard, Dell, or Gateway, I would just like to know if any of you have any ideas for a computer case that is a good size for everyday mid-range graphics cards, without making me fork over fifty dollars. I would like to get a case and card, if needed, that dont hit $200 altogether. I believe the gts 250, even if it is just a re-branded 9800 like people say, would be a good upgrade. Especially when Newegg has a 1gig version for only $145.00 . I want a case that's good enough, and only costs $20, or at most, $25. I live in the U.S, so don't recommend Canadian stores or products, please, lol, unless they have a United States location.

P.S - Do u think I need an upgrade for my PSU as well? I don't know for sure how many watts it is, but I think the gt230 requires around 400 or 450, right?

Again, I'm not pissed, so please don't take offense, but I want the facts. Facts, not fiction. Any help would be much appreciated.

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

Well, dude, its 15 inches long, 14 inches tall.my comp case, that is.That means it's bigger than a 9inch long, 4pointsomething inch tall graphics card and... Where are u getting this info, btw? And what do u recommend then? Those are the biggest names in computers. Are the ASUS and Acer comps better? Ur ruling out pretty much all of the main companies but those two. And if Dell isn't big enough for upgrading, that is sad, honestly, because Dell is considered one of the best, if not THE best, in comps, with HP close behind it. I know ASUS is supposed to be good, but they arent as popular as Dell, from what I hear. Also, if u add up the cost of a relatively cheap gts250 w/ 1 gig dedicated memory,which is 145 bucks on Newegg, (It's gtS 250, btw, not gtX 250.) AND a new 30 dollar case, the total is $170.00 I'm a budget fellah, and I know thats a lot to spend when ur only trying to upgrade to a mid-range gpu, lol.

I think I'll stick with my gt230 for a while, if it can play recent, demanding games w/max settings (with or without AA doesn't matter much, I guess.) at 1440x900, or, at least, 1280x720. I rly do think thats a pretty sweeping statement ur making tho. I can believe maybe Compaq has smaller PCs, but HP, Dell, and Gateway are some of the biggest and best names in computers.

Edit: Sry, its actually a total of 175 bucks, not 170 lol. Bad math.

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

My PC is by HP. The exact model is HP Pavilion Elite e9260f, which I think has been re-named by HP, and the processor was upscaled to an i7. I think my specific model is discontinued, but uh... The newer series looks like it just has a gt230shoved in an i7 machine with otherwise the same specs as my PC, perhaps even less system memory, in some cases.

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

[QUOTE="Luminouslight"][QUOTE="ionusX"]

no the gt240 = 9600gt

gt230 is basically a msifit crossbreed of a 9600gso with a 9500gt.

gt220 IS a 9500gt

gt210 = 9400gt

ionusX

Technically the GT230 is just a slightly lower clocked 9600gt, but the architecture is roughly the same. You're correct that it performs more like a 9600GSO, but I don't see how it would resemble a 9500gt.

it acts almost like a 9600gso core on a 9500gt board thats what im saying its still a little worse than a 9600gso very similar but not the same as. so calling it a 9600gt is inaccurate by a fair chunk.. a gt230 is its own breed of creature to power to be a 9500gt not powerful enough to be a 9600clone. its basically on par with an hd 4670 which isnt a bad thing at all. just saying that an hd 4670 or gt230 could be alot better.

Please... Stop b4 I have a tech overload! All I know is that the gt230 is some kind of OEM re-do of a gt240 or gt220, and it is one notch above the gt240, and one notch below the gts250. If I need an upgrade soon, maybe once NVIDIA's new DX11 series comin soon brings down older card prices, then fine, so be it. Just please tell me in plain english if my card's okay. I heard some1 said ME:2 should b fine at my resolutions, so.... Well, I guess thats fine. Just some background info of my card's supposed power: Performance w/my comp when playing the Batman: Arkham Asylum demo = Couldn't be better, but its strange the demo doesnt let me modify graphics settings so I not sure the game was on high settings or what, but even if it wasnt, it looked great. Performance w/my comp when playing Darkest of Days demo = Truly pitiful. Really honest-to-goodness, almost a slide show on 1440x900, even if I turn off AA, AF, V-sync, and Ambient Occlusion. I had ta go all the way down to 800x600, which is ugly no matter what settings the graphics are at, lol, and I STILL got bad frame rates even w/out AA, AF, Ambient Occlusion, and V-sync. I'm guessing tho, especially from the reviews, that that game is just bad, lol, cuz just lookin at screenshots its really fugly even w/all the settings on high. I can play COD5 at max everything and have no probs except ping in online (thats unrelated tho, I think, to the card's power) and since COD5 works great, I betting COD4 and COD:MW2 will as well. I seem to have no trouble with games whose "recommended" specs say 7600 or 7800gt for NVIDIA, but the 8800gt ones become wobbly ground, cuz I don't rly no how well it will work on 'em.

I'm thinking I should be fine, but if not, what upgrade would u recommend? I like both ATI and NVIDIA, and actually, I like ATi more but it seems nowadays their cards have probs w/random lines on the screen, and some of their drivers have probs, along with there being basically no documentation for Eyefinity. That sounds like a lot, lol, but I like that they run on blah-level PSU's. Their high-end cards only require 450W w/... uhh.... 12v rail that has something like 22 or 24amps, I think... NVIDIA seems like its more stable. It requires more powerful PSU's and its a bit more expensive and bulky, but... ya, more stable. lol. My comp's case will probably fit a gts250, Radeon HD 5750, or even a gtx somethin or ati radeon hd 5770 and higher. My case, measured by me w/ the ruler, lol, is about 15 inches long, 14 or so tall. That should fit a gts250, right? I think that card is like, um, 9 inches long and 4.somethin inches tall (its a real humdinger lol) so ya.

P.S - I would've asked u guys b4 I gotthe comp whether it was good, but my dad wanted something from Bestbuy or MicroCenter, not Newegg or Amazon, and it had to be in the 900-something $ range or $1,000 exactly. We got the comp for 950 bucks at the holiday sale in xmas time 2009 from Bestbuy. It was originally $1,050 there lol. I had found, tho, some really, really powerful desktops at Newegg.com for only 999.99, but my dad doesnt like buying computers online, cuz he fears getting a card thats DOA and has no warranty or something lol. I'm 13, by the way, so I still hafta put up with my dad's decisions, sadly.

Avatar image for Tennisobsessor1
Tennisobsessor1

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 Tennisobsessor1
Member since 2008 • 55 Posts

What resolution do you play at? The higher it is, the lower fps you will get, so the lower settings you will have to use. The GT 230 is a lower end card now a days. It'll run them really well at a low resolution, but at higher resolutions it may struggle.Luminouslight

I have to play at a rez higher than 1024x768, or else I cant stand it, its too ugly. I usually play at 1440x900, but... I could just do it at 1280x720 if I hafta.